Supressed Debt Limit News – Moon of Alabama

October 1, 2007

Supressed Debt Limit News

Last Thursday congress increased the federal government debt limit from $8.965 trillion to $9.815 trillion.

That will be some US$ 32,600 of debt on every U.S. citizen – suckling to old.

Not that the debt itself matters that much. Who says a government will have to pay back its debt at all?

Sure, the interest has to be payed, but the Fed can certainly influence that rate. Additionally a little inflation can do wonders on debt burdons. As long as China and the Middle East oil-sheiks find reason to agree to such a devaluation of their reserves, everything is fine. But it is foolish to assume that they will do so forever.

What is really astonishing is how little public attention the issue received.

Searching the Washington Post site for "debt limit" I only find a small Reuters dispatch. The New York Times posts three lines on it from an AP dispatch at the end of an article about Senate Passes Children’s Health Plan. A Google News search for "federal debt limit" turns up nine hits.

Is there any doubt that this news is somehow ‘neglected’? Could the the other votes casted in the same Thursday session be the reason for ignoring the issue?

The Senate:

proceeded to approve a stop-gap spending bill that gives the Bush White House at least $9 billion in new funding for its war in Iraq.

Additionally, the administration has been given emergency authority to tap further into a $70 billion "bridge fund" to provide new infusions of money for the occupation while the Congress works on appropriations bills for the Department of Defense and other agencies.

Translation: Under the guise of a stop-gap spending bill that is simply supposed to keep the government running until a long-delayed appropriations process is completed — probably in November — the Congress has just approved a massive increase in war funding.

This with no strings attached.

My interpretation: Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have any interest to let the voters know about this. Thus the MSM complies and doesn’t report the debt increase and the "bridge funds" accompanying it.

Posted by b on October 1, 2007 at 16:24 UTC | Permalink

Comments

To reporton the impacts of a rising debt would require analyzing politics economically. “Poitical economics” is a taboo word here in the land of the Fed and IMF. Consequences cannot be reasoned through under such an approach.
There is no “American” language in which to report this news.

Posted by: ‘citizen’ | Oct 1 2007 19:42 utc | 1

Another snapshot of the US economy being spun:

“Readings on core inflation have improved modestly this year,” the Federal Open Market Committee said in justifying its 50-basis-point interest-rate cut last month, while conceding that “some inflation risks remain.”
Catch that bit about “core inflation”? That’s Fedspeak for: Inflation is under control, unless you look at the costs of things that are going up. The core rate excludes the prices of food and energy, which can be volatile from month to month. Factor them in, and inflation is about as moderate as Newt Gingrich. In the first eight months of 2007, the consumer price index—the main gauge of inflation—rose at a 3.7 percent annual rate. That’s more than 50 percent higher than the mild 2.3 percent core rate. The prices of energy and food are soaring, at 12.7 percent and 5.6 percent annual rates, respectively, and have been doing so for years. As a result, the CPI—including food and energy—has risen 12.6 percent since July 2003, for a compound rate of about 3 percent.

Posted by: small coke | Oct 1 2007 20:27 utc | 2

Yes. And the interest setters are the most important actors in whether economies thrive or wither,as seen on every business page, yet their motives are publicly purer than Ivanhoe’s.forget, help.

Posted by: plushtown | Oct 1 2007 20:30 utc | 3

Another $850,000,000,000 added to the deficit?
Where will it come from?
Who will loan it to them?
Nobody!
They will simply print it.
First they blow all our social security money on bombs and bullets then they wantonly de-value our hard earned savings.
What is the gain, lf you win the war of the world but can’t breath the air or eat the food because it’s all contaminated by modern weaponry? OR, nobody wants dollars anymore.
Is this not terrorism?

Posted by: pb | Oct 1 2007 20:39 utc | 4

Dammit! Pressed the send button too soon.
Meant to say: OR, Horror of horrors, nobody wants dollars anymore!

Posted by: pb | Oct 1 2007 20:51 utc | 5

It really is infuriating that they approve an additional $70 billion or so (with more to come) in war spending while El Jefe holds up the fiscal year budget that should be in place as of today over a $22 billion argument(in total) with Congress about what is the exact right amount to spend on education, worker safety, national parks, food safety inspection, local health clinics, safe drinking water, etc.

Posted by: Maxcrat | Oct 2 2007 0:51 utc | 6

I wrote this post on the first day I tried to blog as an unemployed, 22 year old, former Dean campaign staffer. http://mwitemyre.blogspot.com/2004/03/now-its-2497116.html
The debt-share jumped from $25,000 to $32,000 per person in 4 years.
ps- Please ignore how bad the writing is. I was 22 for God’s sake. I thought Grover Norquist had “some good ideas.”
pps-I saw that Billmon popped up over at Glenn Greenwald’s place the other day in comments. Do you Moon of Alabamians have any any contact with him anymore? Any chance of his return?

Posted by: Matt Witemyre | Oct 2 2007 3:58 utc | 7

Do you Moon of Alabamians have any any contact with him anymore? Any chance of his return? unfortunatly no. we still have hope though.

Posted by: b | Oct 2 2007 7:38 utc | 8

re #2
As one’s income decreases the percent spent on food and shelter increase. For the poor, then, the inflation rate is higher still.

Posted by: edwin | Oct 2 2007 13:09 utc | 9

Shouldn’t the national debt be assigned not on a per-capita basis but rather proportionally according to what share of the nation’s wealth one owns?

Posted by: ralphieboy | Oct 2 2007 13:31 utc | 10

Shouldn’t the national debt be assigned not on a per-capita basis but rather proportionally according to what share of the nation’s wealth one owns?
Not if one is a GWB groopie.

Posted by: b | Oct 2 2007 14:17 utc | 11

Back to Main